November 10
The non-signers file their amended legal brief against the Regents
in the lawsuit which is now designated by the courts as Tolman
v. Underhill. They argue that the State Constitution forbids
any special oath beyond the oath of allegiance to the State for
any public officer including faculty, that the University
is required by the Constitution to be free of any political
or sectarian influence," that this is essential to academic
freedom, that the Regents should not have been allowed to reconsider
their vote not to fire the non-signers, and that the vote was a
violation of the principle of tenure.

November 17
The Board debates the Levering Oath. Regent Neylan is strongly
against requiring UC employees to sign it because it would weaken
the Universitys autonomy.

November 24
A special meeting of the Board to continue discussing the Levering
Oath draws only ten Regents, and business is postponed.

December 14
The Regents file their legal brief in Tolman v. Underhill,
arguing that the non-signing faculty members are not public officers
within the meaning of the State Constitution and that faculty have
no legal sovereignty in the governance of the University; instead,
the Constitution grants the Regents full powers of organization
or government.

December 15
The Regents vote to require the Levering Oath, with Neylan opposing.

December 22
The Court of Appeals hears verbal arguments in Tolman v. Underhill,
questioning the Regents attorneys about the right of tenure
and other matters.